Thanks to all of the Council who voted for this, and also to the Weekly, whose recent editorial excoriated certain obstructionist council members who thankfully switched their votes last night. It was wrong to play politics when tenants are being kicked out of their apartments.

But we now need the Council to address the illegal proposal to convert the 75 apartments into a hotel. Under our laws, the upper floors of the building can only be used for residences - and if there are none for a year, those floors then can't be used at all. No doubt the building owner will then attempt to pressure the Council to make the hotel conversion legal and let it reap a huge profit. We should head this off now, perhaps by passing a law that such abandoned floors belong instead to the city, so it can use those for affordable housing.

I regret voting for Tanaka and don’t remember why I did. I don’t recall him disclosing that he was a chamber of commerce representative. Tanaka needs to leave our City Attorney’s time to advise interests of residents instead of getting free legal advice for real estate operators.

We need every law or initiative that protects renters and residents and Tanaka could use tutoring about why that is good for the City.

This election no more risks or experiments

Glad these dinos came around and removed the means testing. Thanks to Council Member DuBois for pulling this off the consent calendar for a full discussion.

Another full discussion necessary is the rent stabilization and just cause evictions as proposed for a study in the original October 2017 Dubois, Holman and Kou memo.

Wolbach vehemently opposes to have it studied and a full discussion. He talks a lot and proposes unmeaningful “compromises”.

[Post removed.]

Sometimes even the most cynical council members are forced to do the right thing. Thanks to Kniss and Scharff for supporting tenant relocations.

Interesting that Kniss spoke out against rent control as Mayor after needing to recuse herself on the issue one week before. Anyone want to file another fair political practices complaint? What happened to the investigation of her dubious campaign financing practices? They are just stacking up.

The concept could also be broadened to appease Palo Alto residents who are adamantly against the proliferation of RVs lining various streets in the city.

By issuing city-authorized 'no-fault' eviction notices to parked RVs, RV dwellers could then bring the citations to City Hall where they would receive a modest check for 'relocation assistance' to another location/vicinity (e.g. Mountain View) with the stipulation that if they ever parked in Palo Alto again, their RVs would be subject to impoundment + a very hefty fine.

Instead of being earmarked for nubulous 'infra-structure' expenses, the proposed hotel tax revenue could be utilized for the ongoing eradication of these visual eyesores.

This was a good success for the President Hotel folks and other renters in big apartment complexes throughout the city. It only applies if owners want to evict tenants for no cause in big complexes like the President.
Unfortunately, as the article made clear Wolbach has successfully blocked for now any consideration of more meaningful renter protections similar to what San Jose and Mountain View already have and those protections have not slowed down their construction of new rental housing. What Wolbach has proposed is pretty much a nothing burger for renters wrapped in Wolbach’s claims that it is meaty.

To Seeking Relocation Assistance:
The relocation ordinance is only for Multi-family housing developments with 50 or more rental units.

Very glad the income test was removed. The relocation payment ($7,000/studio, $9,000/1 bedroom, $13,000/2 bedrooms, $17,000/3+bedrooms) will barely cover first+last+security deposit for a new apartment around here.

From to the ordinance: "According to rental market tracking sites Zumper, Trulia, and Rentometer, as of August 2018, the average rent in Palo Alto is approximately $2,300 per month for a studio, $2,900 for a one-bedroom, $4,300 for a two-bedroom, $5,600 for a three-bedroom, and $7,000 for a four-bedroom unit."

It is important to know where the other city council candidates stand on these issue. Have Alison Cormac and Pat Boone taken positions? If not, hopefully the papers and the debates will insist that they make there positions clear

Oh well ... now low income folks will just have to cover the relocation payments for high income folks by seeing their rent increase to cover the extra costs. I guess its only fair since high income folks pay most of the income taxes.

So will Palo Alto landlords tack on a relocation assistance fee like how SF restaurants charge customers for the Healthy San Francisco mandate?

There are only a few rental buildings in Palo Alto with 50 or more units. The owners of these buildings still have to compete for renters with the market rate set by owners of all the smaller units not covered by relocation assistance requirements.

"So will Palo Alto landlords tack on a relocation assistance fee?"

No -- and that sounds like wzCYfear-mongering. Few Palo Alto landlords are subject to this rule, and few of those would ever kick out good tenants willing to pay the rent. So only a tiny number of landlords need ever worry about paying for relocation. And they won't be able to charge a rent premium if they want to remain competitive with the much large number of units for rent in Palo Alto and surrounding areas.

A simple one for me. I'm just gonna sell my two triplexes and move on. I'll be damned if I'm paying any tenant to relocate. That's their problem.

Or perhaps it's the new landlords' problem.

Ignoring the trolling on this topic, we do need to implement a humane solution for the RVs. East Palo Alto found some parking lots that can be used overnight. RVs can park in the evening and must be out in the morning. What if we did the same thing in the research park?

I'd like to urge the city council take a look at Toronto. They passed Housing Fairness Act, aka Rent Control, in April of 2017.

What happened after that? (1) rent increase accelerated, (2) vacancy dropped to historical lows, around 1 percent, and (3) new rental construction projects dropped sharply from 40-50 thousand units to around 10 thousand. Rest either scrapped completely or re-purposed to condos for sale.

I think similar consequences will probably happen in Palo Alto too. It is good news for home owners though. Palo Alto has too many rentals.

> The relocation payment ($7,000/studio, $9,000/1 bedroom, $13,000/2 bedrooms, $17,000/3+bedrooms) will barely cover first+last+security deposit for a new apartment around here.

Moving costs should also be included + a stipend for inconvenience and mental anguish (if any) as moving can be a very traumatic experience for some.

So how does this apply to the end of a lease. Suppose a landlord decides not renew a tenants lease, is that considered an eviction? Will he have to pay relocation fees?
Love how the council and the weekly suddenly became concerned with regrets when a greasy wheel needed oiling.

QUOTE: + a stipend for inconvenience and mental anguish (if any) as moving can be a very traumatic experience for some.

Just how would this particular addendum be established? Would it require the assistance of an attorney and a clinical psychologist?

Question,

As Shearwater posted, this is worth repeating

"The relocation ordinance is only for Multi-family housing developments with 50 or more rental units."

Heads up - renters pay premium rents in Palo Alto, either by paying a lot of money to live here when they could buy elsewhere maybe, or pay premium by sacrificing in terms of living space or living in outdated buildings.

This is not Toronto.

And the people Council should protect are also not in Toronto. They happen to be our neighbors, our friends, our kids' friends, teachers, younger residents, older people who can't easily move on a whim.

Everything should be considered and studied carefully.

Should be easy for council members to 'do the right thing'. At the cost of some legislated relocation payments (funded by the landowner), the city will now have a new 100 unit hotel generating another $1.5M in transient occupancy taxes to help fund a bloated budget.

The homeless vagrants in PA are also city residents to a certain extent. What can we do to help them along the lines of relocation assistance?

While they are not necessarily being evicted from a specific premise, perhaps a surcharge on local businesses could help ease the problem. After all, it is often the businesses who complain about the homeless presence in front of their stores and restaurants.

Something in the neighborhood of $2500.00 would be a reasonable start.